Smoke two...

Re: Smoke two...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
news:Misc-81CA48.18130314042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
> In article <PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga>,
> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>
>> You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
>> right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such
>> as
>> food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
>
> "Implies"... ;)
>
> Except it doesn't. That's just "sense of entitlement."

The difference being, in the "modern usage" that Bart refers to, people have
a right to THINGS, which is very different from freedom of ACTION.

Unfortunately, the idea of negative rights (freedom of action) is hard to
communicate.
given the influx of positive rights in more current times.

> We have a right to buggery, but not a right to free food or health care.
> Actually, we *DO* have the right to free food or health care -- under
> exactly the same terms to which we have a right to buggery. That is, if
> you can find an consenting adult to give you the think you seek without
> you taking it from them against their will, then you guys have the right
> to make that exchange.

Cum again? :~)

Actually, that's freedom of trade (I can make make it through that PROFOUND
example).


>
> For example:
>
> Citizen: Mind if I fuck you in the ass?
> MikeZ: Sure, go right ahead!
> Citizen: Actually, would you mind giving me a hamburger, instead?
> MikeZ: Bugger off, you tease!
>
> See, this citizen is out of luck.
>
> Misc "it's too bad more people aren't more charitable..." ;)

We should donate a six-pack of psychiatry sessions to him.

Re: Smoke two...


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:_xTMj.49862$QC.47306@newsfe20.lga...
>
> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
> news:Misc-81CA48.18130314042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>> In article <PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga>,
>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>
>>> You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
>>> right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such
>>> as
>>> food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
>>
>> "Implies"... ;)
>>
>> Except it doesn't. That's just "sense of entitlement."
>
> The difference being, in the "modern usage" that Bart refers to, people
> have a right to THINGS, which is very different from freedom of ACTION.
>
> Unfortunately, the idea of negative rights (freedom of action) is hard to
> communicate.
> given the influx of positive rights in more current times.

We do have a right to some support from the community, whichever way you
want to view it. If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such goods
and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.

Re: Smoke two...

"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
>news:_xTMj.49862$QC.47306@newsfe20.lga...
>>
>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
>> news:Misc-81CA48.18130314042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>>> In article <PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga>,
>>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>>
>>>> You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
>>>> right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items, such
>>>> as
>>>> food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
>>>
>>> "Implies"... ;)
>>>
>>> Except it doesn't. That's just "sense of entitlement."
>>
>> The difference being, in the "modern usage" that Bart refers to, people
>> have a right to THINGS, which is very different from freedom of ACTION.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the idea of negative rights (freedom of action) is hard to
>> communicate.
>> given the influx of positive rights in more current times.
>
>We do have a right to some support from the community, whichever way you
>want to view it. If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
>life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such goods
>and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.
>
>

You have no rights that depend on the fruits of another's labor.

Re: Smoke two...


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:15q90499bkqbonosngerlpjtb8pmhush08@4ax . com ...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
>>news:_xTMj.49862$QC.47306@newsfe20.lga...
>>>
>>> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in message
>>> news:Misc-81CA48.18130314042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net ...
>>>> In article <PmSMj.105685$Ft5.5348@newsfe15.lga>,
>>>> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You speak of a right to [do something]. I say that's correct, but a
>>>>> right TO also infers that you have a right to some material items,
>>>>> such
>>>>> as
>>>>> food, health care, financial assistance, (etc. ad infinitum).
>>>>
>>>> "Implies"... ;)
>>>>
>>>> Except it doesn't. That's just "sense of entitlement."
>>>
>>> The difference being, in the "modern usage" that Bart refers to, people
>>> have a right to THINGS, which is very different from freedom of ACTION.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the idea of negative rights (freedom of action) is hard
>>> to
>>> communicate.
>>> given the influx of positive rights in more current times.
>>
>>We do have a right to some support from the community, whichever way you
>>want to view it. If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
>>life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such
>>goods
>>and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>>shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.
>>
>>
>
> You have no rights that depend on the fruits of another's labor.

Try getting a speedy trial that is not funded by general taxation; in fact,
Amendment 6 specifically provides for the full might of the state
(tax-funded) to ensure your right to call witnesses in your favour.

Try denying that your children have a right to support from their parents.

Re: Smoke two...


"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:15q90499bkqbonosngerlpjtb8pmhush08@4ax . com ...
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>We do have a right to some support from the community, whichever way you
>>want to view it. If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right to
>>life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such
>>goods
>>and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>>shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.

What a wonderfully triablistic perspective.

Think: parasitism

Think: slavery (or "involuntary servitude" at best).


>>
>>
>
> You have no rights that depend on the fruits of another's labor.

Geez.. . it 's absurd you need to point this out.

Re: Smoke two...


"Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
news:i0eNj.105795$Ft5.47034@newsfe15.lga...
>
> "Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
> news:15q90499bkqbonosngerlpjtb8pmhush08@4ax . com ...
>> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>We do have a right to some support from the community, whichever way you
>>>want to view it. If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right
>>>to
>>>life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such
>>>goods
>>>and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>>>shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.
>
> What a wonderfully triablistic perspective.
>
> Think: parasitism
>
> Think: slavery (or "involuntary servitude" at best).

OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic child. You and your
wife die. There is no money. Your kid is utterly incapable of providing
for himself. At that point, do you really say "hey, let the kid take his
chances with charity, he has no right to live" or will you agree that he is
a human being and has the right to the very basic means of ensuring
survival?

More generally, does it really give you a warm glow of justifiable
righteousness to argue that it's perfectly legal and just to let a guy
starve, freeze or bleed to death in some alley near you?

This is not an issue of welfare fraud.
It's a fundamental point of natural and human rights.
You DO NOT deprive me of my life.
You DO NOT deprive me of the means necessary for my very life.
Anything else is murder.

Re: Smoke two...

Alex W. wrote:

> "Tom S." <t.m.s.work@cox . net > wrote in message
> news:i0eNj.105795$Ft5.47034@newsfe15.lga...
>
>>"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
>>news:15q90499bkqbonosngerlpjtb8pmhush08@4ax . com ...
>>
>>>"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We do have a right to some support from the community, whichever way you
>>>>want to view it. If one assumes (not unreasonably) that I have a right
>>>>to
>>>>life, then you and the entire community are obligated to provide such
>>>>goods
>>>>and services as are required to ensure my survival -- think clothing,
>>>>shelter (at least in winter) and basic medical care.
>>
>>What a wonderfully triablistic perspective.
>>
>>Think: parasitism
>>
>>Think: slavery (or "involuntary servitude" at best).
>
>
> OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic child. You and your
> wife die. There is no money. Your kid is utterly incapable of providing
> for himself. At that point, do you really say "hey, let the kid take his
> chances with charity, he has no right to live" or will you agree that he is
> a human being and has the right to the very basic means of ensuring
> survival?
>
> More generally, does it really give you a warm glow of justifiable
> righteousness to argue that it's perfectly legal and just to let a guy
> starve, freeze or bleed to death in some alley near you?
>
> This is not an issue of welfare fraud.
> It's a fundamental point of natural and human rights.
> You DO NOT deprive me of my life.
> You DO NOT deprive me of the means necessary for my very life.
> Anything else is murder.

individuals, banding together by choice and conscience provide services to those
in need. government, taking their funding through coercion and duress (under
penalty of imprisonment and/or fines) is theft. the former may or may not work
100% of the time but is 100% constitutional and ethical. the latter is neither
and, depending on how it's accomplished is the result of either a fascist or
socialistic state (of which neither is what the CotUSA established).

Re: Smoke two...

In article <66m1plF2l544lU1@mid.individual . net >,
"Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic child. You and your
> wife die. There is no money. Your kid is utterly incapable of providing
> for himself. At that point, do you really say "hey, let the kid take his
> chances with charity, he has no right to live" or will you agree that he is
> a human being and has the right to the very basic means of ensuring
> survival?

False dilemma.

We say "the kid has a right to live, I *do* so hope that someone will be
charitable and help him do so."

What we do *NOT* say is: "Alex, you are hereby responsible for providing
for this child in the manner that we feel he deserves."

...Because that would be stealing. It would be WRONG.

> More generally, does it really give you a warm glow of justifiable
> righteousness to argue that it's perfectly legal and just to let a guy
> starve, freeze or bleed to death in some alley near you?

Yes.

Because even though you attempt to paint it in those horrible terms,
what we're REALLY arguing is that man's life is important, and that he
has a right to direct himself and the fruits of his own labour.

Does it REALLY give you a warm glow to argue that an unemployed bum
should be allowed to hold a gun to our heads and take what is ours,
because he's too lazy to get off his ass and find a job?

Let's cut the bullshit, Alex -- folks are trying to have an honest
discussion, here, and you're out making carefully crafted ad-homs and
"for the children" arguments. We expect better of you.

> This is not an issue of welfare fraud.
> It's a fundamental point of natural and human rights.

Indeed. We agree, here.

> You DO NOT deprive me of my life.

Indeed. No one should do so.

> You DO NOT deprive me of the means necessary for my very life.

Indeed. No one should do so.

> Anything else is murder.

...Or theft, depending on how much depriving you're doing.

I believe this argument is centred around your confusing "must not
deprive" with "must provide."

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke two...

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
news:Misc-920B9C.08554316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :

> In article <66m1plF2l544lU1@mid.individual . net >,
> "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic child.

> False dilemma.
>
> We say "the kid has a right to live, I *do* so hope that someone will
> be charitable and help him do so."

Not really a false dilemma, but worse, what can "right"
possibly mean if you can't exercise it? It reminds me of
the recent news story in which it was revealed that the
Las Vegas(?) police considered the refusal to have one's
car searched as "probable cause" for searching one's car.

In your, or anyone else's, definition of "right", is it
possible to "have" a right, and yet have it be impossible
to exercise that right?

E.g., Do I have the right to fly under my own power like
Superman? I suppose I do, but it sure is a meaningless
right. It seems like the "right to live" ought not to
be as meaningless as my right to fly.

I'm pretty sure that there's no sensible definition of
"right" which doesn't obligate society in some fashion.
(Otherwise, what's the point of having "rights" at all?)

> What we do *NOT* say is: "Alex, you are hereby responsible for
> providing for this child in the manner that we feel he deserves."

Actually, we do.

> ...Because that would be stealing. It would be WRONG.

Taxes are unpleasant, but they're not wrong.

B

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <Xns9A8276EF5EE91goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.93>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:

> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
> news:Misc-920B9C.08554316042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> > In article <66m1plF2l544lU1@mid.individual . net >,
> > "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> OK, specific example. You have a severely autistic child.

> > False dilemma.
> >
> > We say "the kid has a right to live, I *do* so hope that someone will
> > be charitable and help him do so."

> Not really a false dilemma, but worse, what can "right"
> possibly mean if you can't exercise it? It reminds me of
> the recent news story in which it was revealed that the
> Las Vegas(?) police considered the refusal to have one's
> car searched as "probable cause" for searching one's car.

That's typically illegal, although it won't come out until the guy's
spent a lot of time in jail. There are exceptions. If your refusal
comes as "No, officer, I sure as hell don't want you searching my car
and finding all the drugs & dead bodies...", that's probable cause. But
if it's a simple "no, thank you, I'd rather you didn't", then it's not.

> In your, or anyone else's, definition of "right", is it
> possible to "have" a right, and yet have it be impossible
> to exercise that right?

Sure. Mute people have the right to free speech. (I suppose they could
exercise their right to free press, but that's hardly the same, eh?)
Blind people have the right to "watch" XXX movies, etc.

> E.g., Do I have the right to fly under my own power like
> Superman?

Sort of. I mean, if we can assume all the "without endangering others"
and etc., then sure.

> I suppose I do, but it sure is a meaningless
> right. It seems like the "right to live" ought not to
> be as meaningless as my right to fly.

And it's not! But "the right to live" is very-very different from "the
right to be provided life by others" or "the right to have your
continued life assured by others."

C'mon Bart -- you know this stuff! Are you trying to be Socratic, here?
Please consider your audience ;)

> I'm pretty sure that there's no sensible definition of
> "right" which doesn't obligate society in some fashion.
> (Otherwise, what's the point of having "rights" at all?)

Aha! We can get into "obligates TO" and "obligates FROM" stuff, now ;)
This is a "form/shadow" thing -- my right to free press, for example,
obligates society to NOT PREVENT me from printing & distributing my
conspiracy newsletter. it does NOT obligate society to provide me with
the profitable newspaper of my choosing, lessons on how to run the
company, and editorial privilege over (say) The New York Times.

See the difference? (I KNOW you do! Can you help us explain it to
Alex?)

> > What we do *NOT* say is: "Alex, you are hereby responsible for
> > providing for this child in the manner that we feel he deserves."

> Actually, we do.

> > ...Because that would be stealing. It would be WRONG.

> Taxes are unpleasant, but they're not wrong.

Well, they're stealing, and stealing is wrong... Of course -- and this
is the odd part -- if enough people gather together and say it's ok to
take Bart's stuff and give it to Gladyz then, somehow, that becomes
"right" in some people's eyes.

FWIW, I'd still call it stealing, and tell them to knock it off.

Misc "gotcher back, buddy..."

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke two...

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
news:Misc-6BCCC3.10365416042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :

>> police considered the refusal to have one's
>> car searched as "probable cause" for searching one's car.
>
> That's typically illegal,

You'd think. In fact, the news story was the story of the
federal judge telling them to cut it out. The point is:
is it a "right" if you can't exercise it?


>> In your, or anyone else's, definition of "right", is it
>> possible to "have" a right, and yet have it be impossible
>> to exercise that right?
>
> Sure. Mute people have the right to free speech. (I suppose they
> could exercise their right to free press, but that's hardly the same,
> eh?) Blind people have the right to "watch" XXX movies, etc.

The point is: Is it a "right" if you can't exercise it?

>> E.g., Do I have the right to fly under my own power like
>> Superman?
>
> Sort of.

The point is: Is it a "right" if you can't exercise it?

The above examples are _meaningless_ rights (if they really
are "rights".) What makes them meaningless is that the
person who has them can't use them.

This is a problem, because it looks like any "right" you
have can be taken away. Do you have the right to live?
<bang!> Let's see you live now. Do you have the right to
vote? Not if the guy giving the literacy test decides
that you need to be able to read a Chinese newspaper to
be "literate". Do you have the right to privacy? Go
ahead and complain _after_ the swat team kicks down your
door because they had the wrong address.

What does it mean to "have a right" when everything a person
might claim as a "right" can be (and is) taken away.

> I mean, if we can assume all the "without endangering
> others" and etc., then sure.

Rest assured, if I could fly, none of you would be safe.
I'd be known as "Pigeonman", righting the wrongs of
evil do-doers.

>> I suppose I do, but it sure is a meaningless
>> right. It seems like the "right to live" ought not to
>> be as meaningless as my right to fly.
>
> And it's not! But "the right to live" is very-very different from
> "the right to be provided life by others" or "the right to have your
> continued life assured by others."

It may be different, but it's not "very-very different". If
a guy is alone on a desert island, what "rights" does he have?
Answer: Nothing meaningful. Having rights is meaningful only
if there is a society in which to have them.

If I had my way (and I don't) the a priori discussion would
be society's obligations to individuals. Then I'd define
"right" as the reverse of them. In other words, a "right"
is just a moral obligation of society with the lens turned
around. That's not "very-very different", but actually
something closely related.


> Aha! We can get into "obligates TO" and "obligates FROM" stuff,

Bleh. Truth be told, I don't believe in "rights" as most people
try to use the word. I believe in a person's moral obligations
to treat others properly. It makes me think of the old saying
"A good host makes his guest feel at home and a good guest
doesn't make himself at home." When a person starts demanding
his "rights", then he's become a bad guest.

Society does have a moral obligation to treat people like
the Good Samaratan treated his charge. But I don't know
what it means if the charge says "I have a right to be
succorred by someone."


> Misc "gotcher back, buddy..."

You stand where I can see you, and keep your hands in plain sight.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <Xns9A828AE95976Agoddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.81>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:

> >> In your, or anyone else's, definition of "right", is it
> >> possible to "have" a right, and yet have it be impossible
> >> to exercise that right?

[Misc]
> > Sure. Mute people have the right to free speech. (I suppose they
> > could exercise their right to free press, but that's hardly the same,
> > eh?) Blind people have the right to "watch" XXX movies, etc.

> The point is: Is it a "right" if you can't exercise it?

> >> E.g., Do I have the right to fly under my own power like
> >> Superman?
> >
> > Sort of.

> The point is: Is it a "right" if you can't exercise it?
>
> The above examples are _meaningless_ rights (if they really
> are "rights".) What makes them meaningless is that the
> person who has them can't use them.

In your fly like superman example, this is true. However, MOST rights
about which people speak are meaningful for the vast majority. A right
that "everyone" enjoys doesn't become meaningless just because one
person can't exercise it. My (and your and everyone else's) right to
view porn doesn't become meaningless just because there's a blind guy
out there, somewhere.

And it CERTAINLY doesn't imply that we have to come up with some special
kind of blind-guy porn for him to enjoy! *THAT* is the point (of the
discussion we've been having with Alex.)

> This is a problem, because it looks like any "right" you
> have can be taken away. Do you have the right to live?
> <bang!> Let's see you live now. Do you have the right to
> vote? Not if the guy giving the literacy test decides
> that you need to be able to read a Chinese newspaper to
> be "literate". Do you have the right to privacy? Go
> ahead and complain _after_ the swat team kicks down your
> door because they had the wrong address.

The fact that rights are sometimes violated does not change the fact
that these rights exist.

> What does it mean to "have a right" when everything a person
> might claim as a "right" can be (and is) taken away.

It means they have the right (<G>) to redress.

Your argument seems to be of the form:

Person #1: You can't just go around shooting people...
Bart: Sure I can, watch! <bang, bang>

"Can't" in this case doesn't mean in the literal sense.

Similarly "you have a right to" does NOT mean "you are guaranteed to be
provided" -- that's (again) the whole point of this discussion with
Alex! What "you have a right to" means is "you have a right to go and
get for yourself, with the expectation that no one will actively
interfere and, if they do, society will kick that person in the nuts."
(Figuratively speaking.)

I had to say "actively" interfere, lest someone get it into their head
that my not sending you cigars was somehow "interfering" with your right
to smoke. Sheesh!

> > I mean, if we can assume all the "without endangering
> > others" and etc., then sure.

> Rest assured, if I could fly, none of you would be safe.
> I'd be known as "Pigeonman", righting the wrongs of
> evil do-doers.

The evildoers themselves, or just their statues?

> > But "the right to live" is very-very different from
> > "the right to be provided life by others" or "the right to have your
> > continued life assured by others."
>
> It may be different, but it's not "very-very different". If
> a guy is alone on a desert island, what "rights" does he have?
> Answer: Nothing meaningful. Having rights is meaningful only
> if there is a society in which to have them.

What you say about the deserted man is true, but it does not change the
fact that these are very-very-different things :) Having a right to
something within a society *is* very-very-different from having the
society provide that something to you.

> If I had my way (and I don't) the a priori discussion would
> be society's obligations to individuals. Then I'd define
> "right" as the reverse of them. In other words, a "right"
> is just a moral obligation of society with the lens turned
> around. That's not "very-very different", but actually
> something closely related.

I'm not 100% sure what you just said, but it SOUNDS LIKE what we're
trying to discuss, here.

Us libertarian-types are trying to say that society's obligations to
individuals are pretty minimal. Without thinking about it too much, the
"off the top of my head" list is empty, so "minimal" might actually be
"none." I mean, "obligation to leave people alone and not bother them"
is sort of a negative-obligation, so I'm not sure if you want to count
that.

> > Aha! We can get into "obligates TO" and "obligates FROM" stuff,

> Bleh. Truth be told, I don't believe in "rights" as most people
> try to use the word.

That's because most people use the word to replace "entitlement", which
is a completely different thing. This loud-but-wrong majority hears
"you have the right to life & good health" as "you are entitled to life
and good health provided by others."

> I believe in a person's moral obligations
> to treat others properly. It makes me think of the old saying
> "A good host makes his guest feel at home and a good guest
> doesn't make himself at home." When a person starts demanding
> his "rights", then he's become a bad guest.

I disagree with the last sentence as an absolute. SOME people who start
demanding their rights have become bad guests. Others just want the
rightful rights which are being denied them, and are displeased (or
distraught) at being treated poorly by not-hosts-but-captors.

> Society does have a moral obligation to treat people like
> the Good Samaratan treated his charge. But I don't know
> what it means if the charge says "I have a right to be
> succorred by someone."

I'm suspicious of anything that sounds like "you [collectively or
individually] have a moral obligation to do what my faith teaches."

...Not that this stops ME from doing the same thing! I'm just
suspicious when others do it.

Misc "a suspicious sort of individual..."

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke two...

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
373E3A.12130216042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :


> In your fly like superman example, this is true. However, MOST rights
> about which people speak are meaningful for the vast majority.

I'm not talking about the "right" being meaningful, but about
the "having" being meaningful. We all have the "right" to
view porn, but what does that mean? If Napolean concurs us
and has all our eyes put out, do we retain that right or lose it?

> A right
> that "everyone" enjoys doesn't become meaningless just because one
> person can't exercise it.

It becomes meaningless to the one person, and that's the point.


> And it CERTAINLY doesn't imply that we have to come up with some
special
> kind of blind-guy porn for him to enjoy! *THAT* is the point (of the
> discussion we've been having with Alex.)

Only in an extreme, tangential way. Alex is arguing that
society has obligations. I think we all agree on that.
We disagree on what those obligations are, and we disagree
that a societal obligation translates into a "right", but
I'm still waiting for a decent definition of "right".

Every definition I can think of boils down to something like:
I have the right to look at porn, and that means if you (singular
or society) takes my porn away, then you have sinned.
So my rights are a restriction on how society ought to behave.


> The fact that rights are sometimes violated does not change the fact
> that these rights exist.

Not quite the point. I'm using the fact that "rights" can be
taken away to try to get a decent definition of the term.
We used to gloat that the people in communist countries "have
no rights", but now you're talking like they have all the same
rights as me, just that they've been severely violated.


>> What does it mean to "have a right" when everything a person
>> might claim as a "right" can be (and is) taken away.
>
> It means they have the right (<G>) to redress.
>
> Your argument seems to be of the form:
>
> Person #1: You can't just go around shooting people...
> Bart: Sure I can, watch! <bang, bang>

No. I'm saying "what good is such a 'right'?" That is,
why do we have a word for such a thing? My "right to live"
is worth less than the "Freshness Guarantee" on this
snack size bag of Doritos. At least I can get my Doritos
replaced if the Freshness Guarantee is violted.



> Similarly "you have a right to" does NOT mean "you are guaranteed to be
> provided" -- that's (again) the whole point of this discussion with
> Alex!

And my point is: Then what exactly IS a "right"?

And to bring the argument down a level, I'm pretty sure we
can cook up sensible scenerios where someone "has a right"
which necessarily invokes action on the part of someone else.

My mother was in labor N hours with me, so doesn't she
have a right to a respectful attitude on my part?
I worked hard all month, don't I have a right to my
paycheck, which forces the ladies in accounting to
actively cut me a check?

And I've worked polling places on and off over the years.
In order to guarantee an individual's right to vote, we
have several accomodations for people who can't stand up,
and people who can't read English and people who can't
operate the new-fangled voting machines. One time I had
to assist (actively) an old guy who had no idea what the
machine was doing. We went through candidate by candidate
and issue by issue and worked out whether he was for or
against, and then I worked the mouse-wheel and clicked
the little button. (And when I was done, I had to fill out
a long report detailing exactly what I had done and
verifying that I was extremely careful not to influence
his choices.) All very active and all to accomodate his
"right to vote."


> What you say about the deserted man is true, but it does not change the
> fact that these are very-very-different things :) Having a right to
> something within a society *is* very-very-different from having the
> society provide that something to you.

Isn't society providing your rights to begin with? I'm thinking
of the communist countries again. We have rights, they don't.
Why? Because our society provides them and theirs doesn't.
So if society provides rights, how can having rights be
very very different from society providing something?


> Us libertarian-types are trying to say that society's obligations to
> individuals are pretty minimal. Without thinking about it too much,
> the "off the top of my head" list is empty, so "minimal" might
> actually be "none."

I think most of us think it's morally wrong to run across a
bleeding man in a gutter and not stop to render assistance.
Society is an organization of individuals and it certainly
inherits the moral obligations of those individuals.



>> Bleh. Truth be told, I don't believe in "rights" as most people
>> try to use the word.
>
> That's because most people use the word to replace "entitlement", which
> is a completely different thing. This loud-but-wrong majority hears
> "you have the right to life & good health" as "you are entitled to life
> and good health provided by others."

How about somewhere in between: You have the right to life and
health and we've banded together for the mutual support of these
rights. If you're born into our band, then we're going to take
some of your earnings and insist that you drive on the right
side and not steal and kill, that you be responsible for the
children you sire. In exchange, you can expect that hospitals
will be organized, roads repaired and dead-beat parents hunted
down.

I don't think it's "entitlement" (at least not in the bad way)
if a young women who has been abandoned by her husband insists:
"Dammit, I'm a member of the band, and I play by the rules so
I have a 'right' to have the dead-beat SOB hunted down and
made to pay childsupport." That is, after all, what society
is for. And society is where "rights" come from.


> I'm suspicious of anything that sounds like "you [collectively or
> individually] have a moral obligation to do what my faith teaches."

That's being the bad guest. Moral issues are easy to discuss
when applying moral principles to oneself. It's "being a
bad guest" applying them to others.

Since I argue a bit on a Christian newsgroup, I've had this
happen several times: Some mouthy, egotistical, self-
appointed apostle has trashed my character, accused me of
heinous sin, etc. for several posts. I usually let them
show their true colors for a bit. Then I complain to them.

The most common response is: I should learn to turn the
other cheek. It's one thing for Jesus to say it, it's
quite another for the person slapping me to say it.

I think it's the same principle here. A good host makes
you feel at home. Your job is not to act like you're
at home. The host isn't supposed to think about how
the guest should act. The guest isn't supposed to
think about how the host should act.

When I'm asserting my entitlement, I'm being a bad guest.
When society fails to guarantee and support my rights,
it's being a bad host.

B.


--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.

Re: Smoke two...

In article <Xns9A82AA9E476A7goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.82>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:

> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
> 373E3A.12130216042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
> > In your fly like superman example, this is true. However, MOST rights
> > about which people speak are meaningful for the vast majority.

> I'm not talking about the "right" being meaningful, but about
> the "having" being meaningful. We all have the "right" to
> view porn, but what does that mean? If Napolean concurs us
> and has all our eyes put out, do we retain that right or lose it?

Again, our right is then transgressed, abridged, curtailed or removed.
Shirley, you know this! ;)

Then we all say "we lost our right to view porn, once Napolean took
over." That's the nature of being conquored.

> > A right
> > that "everyone" enjoys doesn't become meaningless just because one
> > person can't exercise it.

> It becomes meaningless to the one person, and that's the point.

No, that's *A* point. It's certainly not *THE* point that anyone [else]
is interested in discussing...

> Only in an extreme, tangential way. Alex is arguing that
> society has obligations. I think we all agree on that.

No, that's the point! <G> We DON'T all agree that society has
obligations. At least not "naturally." I suppose society could assume
obligation through some other action. Similarly, I could start with X
number of obligations and, by borrowing money, end up with X+1
obligations.

> We disagree on what those obligations are, and we disagree
> that a societal obligation translates into a "right", but
> I'm still waiting for a decent definition of "right".

No, we disagree that society has fundamental, natural, "comes-with"
obligations.

You're pulling the salesman trick of "do you want to buy the red car or
the blue car?", completely dismissing the idea that I might not want to
buy any car at all.

> Every definition I can think of boils down to something like:
> I have the right to look at porn, and that means if you (singular
> or society) takes my porn away, then you have sinned.
> So my rights are a restriction on how society ought to behave.

Ok, so I'll concede that society has an obligation to NOT do certain
things -- the old "no hitting, no stealing" rule. But do NOT attempt to
slippery-slope this into society having some sort of obligation *TO* The
People.

> > The fact that rights are sometimes violated does not change the fact
> > that these rights exist.
>
> Not quite the point. I'm using the fact that "rights" can be
> taken away to try to get a decent definition of the term.

A right is "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or
moral: You have a right to say what you please."

I'm PRETTY sure that no one in the discussion thus far will disagree
with that...

> We used to gloat that the people in communist countries "have
> no rights", but now you're talking like they have all the same
> rights as me, just that they've been severely violated.

To the extent that I ever made such a gloat (i) I was almost certainly
mistaken and (ii) "have none" was used sloppily to mean "their
government protects such a small set of what I consider 'basic human
rights' that what is left would appear a niggardly amount."

So, when the U.N. (remember where this thread started...?!) declares
that every person on the planet has the right to <FOO>, what they mean
is: we are declaring that any government which does not protect such a
right is bad, and we will send them a stern letter, if they do not
cooperate."

> No. I'm saying "what good is such a 'right'?" That is,
> why do we have a word for such a thing? My "right to live"
> is worth less than the "Freshness Guarantee" on this
> snack size bag of Doritos. At least I can get my Doritos
> replaced if the Freshness Guarantee is violted.

If your right to live is violated, you (in the person of your living
heirs -- same as if the stale Doritos kill you), you have legal redress.
In a country where people do NOT have the right to live, they just get
killed, and that's the end of that.

FWIW, "life" and "fresh Doritos" are two different scales of "right."
But you're on the right track that a "right" is a sort of
government-sponsored guarantee. "You can have/do/say/go/etc. this thing
and, if anyone tries to stop you, we'll do something about it!" If the
government granted you (or, put another way, if The People demanded, in
return for being allowed to govern, that the government guaranteed...)
the right to fresh Doritos, then it would be EXACTLY the same thing. We
would say, any time someone tried to pass us stale chips, "Hey, I'm an
American, dammit! I have a right to fresh Doritos!"

> And my point is: Then what exactly IS a "right"?

See above.

> And to bring the argument down a level, I'm pretty sure we
> can cook up sensible scenerios where someone "has a right"
> which necessarily invokes action on the part of someone else.

I'm PRETTY sure we can only do that if the obligated person entered
freely into the obligation. (Not counting the taxation crap that we're
currently bitching about.) That is, if the bank lends me money, they
have a right (a government guarantee, a just claim or title) to be
repaid according to our contract. Yes, I'm obligated, here. But that's
not a bank-taking, that's a me-offering.

And the difference between me-offering to be obligated to you and you
offering for me to be obligated to you (or Alex or whoever) is pretty
much the thing that this argument is about.

> My mother was in labor N hours with me, so doesn't she
> have a right to a respectful attitude on my part?

You're [or your were] her chattel. She has [had] a right to smack you
around if you're disrespectful :)

> I worked hard all month, don't I have a right to my
> paycheck, which forces the ladies in accounting to
> actively cut me a check?

A deal they entered into, voluntarily. This is an important distinction
that I'm not going to allow you to sweep under the rug.

> And I've worked polling places on and off over the years.
> In order to guarantee an individual's right to vote, we
> have several accomodations for people who can't stand up,
> and people who can't read English and people who can't
> operate the new-fangled voting machines. One time I had
> to assist (actively) an old guy who had no idea what the
> machine was doing. We went through candidate by candidate
> and issue by issue and worked out whether he was for or
> against, and then I worked the mouse-wheel and clicked
> the little button. (And when I was done, I had to fill out
> a long report detailing exactly what I had done and
> verifying that I was extremely careful not to influence
> his choices.) All very active and all to accomodate his
> "right to vote."

This is all very charitable of you. On behalf of society, I thank you
for volunteering your time, uncoerced.

> Isn't society providing your rights to begin with? I'm thinking
> of the communist countries again. We have rights, they don't.
> Why? Because our society provides them and theirs doesn't.
> So if society provides rights, how can having rights be
> very very different from society providing something?

Ah! You're ignoring "basic human rights." Hey, you should like this,
it's morality. You can claim that German Lutherans have this area all
locked up ;)

When enough people with big enough sway tell enough other people "we're
going to guarantee Bart his right to fresh doritos -- don't stand in his
way or else!", that's your "right", your "guarantee", your "legal & just
claim or title."

Yeah, I guess it all boils down to the guys with the big guns. So...?

> > Us libertarian-types are trying to say that society's obligations to
> > individuals are pretty minimal. Without thinking about it too much,
> > the "off the top of my head" list is empty, so "minimal" might
> > actually be "none."

> I think most of us think it's morally wrong to run across a
> bleeding man in a gutter and not stop to render assistance.

Yeah, so...? Under our system (and MY morality), the man has no "right"
to my assistance. That is, I shouldn't go to jail (or otherwise be
coerced) for not assisting him.

> > most people use the word to replace "entitlement", which
> > is a completely different thing. This loud-but-wrong majority hears
> > "you have the right to life & good health" as "you are entitled to life
> > and good health provided by others."

> How about somewhere in between: You have the right to life and
> health and we've banded together for the mutual support of these
> rights.

Sure!

So long as "we banded together" and not "a few of us banded together,
then we held guns to the heads of a bunch of other people and now
they're in our band, too."

I have the right not to be coerced into joining your band!

> If you're born into our band, then we're going to take
> some of your earnings and insist that you drive on the right
> side and not steal and kill, that you be responsible for the
> children you sire. In exchange, you can expect that hospitals
> will be organized, roads repaired and dead-beat parents hunted
> down.

This is, of course, how it works. But I don't think it's fundamental or
innate in human-societal nature. That is, I don't consider any of this
to be "fundamental human right." It's just something that our parents &
their parents & their parents decided to do, and we're sort of roped
into it with no decent alternatives.

Sealand is selling, though...! ;)

> I don't think it's "entitlement" (at least not in the bad way)
> if a young women who has been abandoned by her husband insists:
> "Dammit, I'm a member of the band, and I play by the rules so
> I have a 'right' to have the dead-beat SOB hunted down and
> made to pay childsupport." That is, after all, what society
> is for. And society is where "rights" come from.

I especially agree since, when that SOB and his young woman agreed
(voluntarily!) to get married, they knew that these were the rules.

> The most common response is: I should learn to turn the
> other cheek. It's one thing for Jesus to say it, it's
> quite another for the person slapping me to say it.

Yup. For one thing, I don't think we have any documented cases of Jesus
talking smack about someone then telling them to turn the other cheek
for him to do it again.

I'm pretty sure that your detractors know this.

> I think it's the same principle here. A good host makes
> you feel at home. Your job is not to act like you're
> at home. The host isn't supposed to think about how
> the guest should act. The guest isn't supposed to
> think about how the host should act.

I don't think it's a good idea to insist on proper social hospitality
between a government wielding guns & jails and the citizens that voted
it into place without a clear understanding of what they were getting.

> When I'm asserting my entitlement, I'm being a bad guest.
> When society fails to guarantee and support my rights,
> it's being a bad host.

At least as worded there, we agree! :)

--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

Re: Smoke two...

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in
news:Misc-C93839.19444216042008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :


> Then we all say "we lost our right to view porn, once Napolean took
> over." That's the nature of being conquored.

Again, what sort of definition of "right" can you have that
makes it possible to lose a right? We observe that man has
certain inalienable rights, but then we alienate them.
What does it mean to have a "right", especially when such
having is unenforcable?

Can it mean anything other than "if you deny me this thing,
then you have sinned against me"?


>> It becomes meaningless to the one person, and that's the point.
>
> No, that's *A* point. It's certainly not *THE* point that anyone
> [else] is interested in discussing...

No else is discussing anything. They're echoing sympathies back
and forth, but no one has said anything substantive yet. Until
we tackle THIS point, it's the only point.


> No, that's the point! <G> We DON'T all agree that society has
> obligations.

> Ok, so I'll concede that society has an obligation to NOT do certain
> things -- the old "no hitting, no stealing" rule. But do NOT attempt
> to slippery-slope this into society having some sort of obligation
> *TO* The People.

It's not a slippery slope. Society is people. And people are
social animals. We have obligations to each other, some passive
and some active. If we don't follow through on the obligations,
everyone dies. We are obliged to take care of our children
and aging parents, if nothing else.


> A right is "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or
> moral: You have a right to say what you please."
>
> I'm PRETTY sure that no one in the discussion thus far will disagree
> with that...

And yet I'm not finding it useful. To define "right" as "just"
isn't really helpful, since in this case they're synonyms. I have
the same trouble figuring out what is a "just" claim that I have
figuring out whether something is a "right".

> To the extent that I ever made such a gloat (i) I was almost certainly
> mistaken and (ii) "have none" was used sloppily to mean "their
> government protects such a small set of what I consider 'basic human
> rights' that what is left would appear a niggardly amount."

This doesn't square with what you say later:


> If your right to live is violated, you (in the person of your living
> heirs -- same as if the stale Doritos kill you), you have legal
> redress.

In the oppressive country, you don't have legal redress, so whatever
it was, it wasn't a right after all...?



> FWIW, "life" and "fresh Doritos" are two different scales of "right."
> But you're on the right track that a "right" is a sort of
> government-sponsored guarantee.

And again here. I have rights which those in oppressive countries
do not, because their government doesn't guarentee them. TomS
already made a big deal about the fact that the government doesn't
"grant rights" (presumably they only "recognize rights.") Now
you are saying something quite different: That rights are government
dependent.


>> And to bring the argument down a level, I'm pretty sure we
>> can cook up sensible scenerios where someone "has a right"
>> which necessarily invokes action on the part of someone else.
>
> I'm PRETTY sure we can only do that if the obligated person entered
> freely into the obligation.

I have a right to a speedy trial. That certainly invokes
action on a number of people. I have a right to a jury trial,
and that means 12 or 18 people have to leave off their jobs
and get paid $6 a day to sit and listen to me fabricate
outlandish stories. None of those on the jury entered into
the agreement willingly. It comes from being born here,
rather than there.


> And the difference between me-offering to be obligated to you and you
> offering for me to be obligated to you (or Alex or whoever) is pretty
> much the thing that this argument is about.

I most firmly believe that you have an obligation to help the
weak in distress. Very few people wouldn't think you an utter
cad if you walked causally by a mugging victim bothering only
to shrug. It's not a government guaranteed obligation, but
a moral one. There are sins of commission and sins of omission.


>> My mother was in labor N hours with me, so doesn't she
>> have a right to a respectful attitude on my part?
>
> You're [or your were] her chattel. She has [had] a right to smack you
> around if you're disrespectful :)

But the point was her rights to _my_ behavior.


>> I worked hard all month, don't I have a right to my
>> paycheck, which forces the ladies in accounting to
>> actively cut me a check?
>
> A deal they entered into, voluntarily. This is an important
> distinction that I'm not going to allow you to sweep under the rug.

Everything's a distinction. What we can't get at is a definition
of "right" that applies to the important cases. (And everything
is already under the rug, that's the problem here.)



>> And I've worked polling places ....
>> All very active and all to accomodate his
>> "right to vote."
>
> This is all very charitable of you. On behalf of society, I thank you
> for volunteering your time, uncoerced.

You can skip over the point, if it makes you uncomfortable, if
you want, but: 1. It was not charitable of me, since I was
modestly paid for my work (it's about $120 for the day.) And
2. It's a good example of a person having a right which
A. demands action on the part of others and B. which no one
entered into voluntarily. The voter is born, and has the
right to vote by virture of being born here. The government
would probably like to forgo all this voting hassle and
expense, but they are obligated to act in such a way as to
secure the voter's right.



>> Isn't society providing your rights to begin with? I'm thinking
>> of the communist countries again. We have rights, they don't.
>> Why? Because our society provides them and theirs doesn't.
>> So if society provides rights, how can having rights be
>> very very different from society providing something?
>
> Ah! You're ignoring "basic human rights." Hey, you should like this,
> it's morality. You can claim that German Lutherans have this area all
> locked up ;)

I'm not ignoring them, I'm waiting for you to tell me what one is.
Especially when you turn around and then try to define it in
terms of the society you just denied:


> When enough people with big enough sway tell enough other people
> "we're going to guarantee Bart his right to fresh doritos -- don't
> stand in his way or else!", that's your "right", your "guarantee",
> your "legal & just claim or title."
>
> Yeah, I guess it all boils down to the guys with the big guns. So...?

What about "basic human rights?"

> Yeah, so...? Under our system (and MY morality), the man has no
> "right" to my assistance. That is, I shouldn't go to jail (or
> otherwise be coerced) for not assisting him.

Not even "tsk-tsk-ed" at?

>> How about somewhere in between: You have the right to life and
>> health and we've banded together for the mutual support of these
>> rights.
>
> Sure!
>
> So long as "we banded together" and not "a few of us banded together,
> then we held guns to the heads of a bunch of other people and now
> they're in our band, too."
>
> I have the right not to be coerced into joining your band!

It doesn't seem like it. A guy is born into a family (a band)
and, while we don't call it coercion, he has no choice about
this. Similarly, he's born in a country (band), which, while he
doesn't realize it, has been protecting him from danger, and
educating him and, by the time he's 16, has given him so much
that he could never repay it. He's in the band, whether he
wills it or not.


>> I think it's the same principle here. A good host makes
>> you feel at home. Your job is not to act like you're
>> at home. The host isn't supposed to think about how
>> the guest should act. The guest isn't supposed to
>> think about how the host should act.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to insist on proper social hospitality
> between a government wielding guns & jails and the citizens that voted
> it into place without a clear understanding of what they were getting.

The analogy isn't about hospitality, but about reversing
an obligatory concept. If "The host should make the guest
feel at home" is the principle, then should both the
host and the guest wield the principle? No. The host
pays attention to his duties and the guest pays attention
to his. And neither clubs the other over the head with
a principle he's not supposed to be thinking about.

Like I said before, I don't really believe in "rights"
(in an absolute sense) but only in obligations.

B.


--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.